Talk:Tesla coil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tesla coil article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high importance within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is part of WikiProject Technology, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Technology. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Archive
Archives
  1. 2005 - 2006


Contents

[edit] Unclear diagram of tesla coil and description

I find it difficult to understand the initial diagram of the Tesla coil and the description following it. First of all, the parts should be labeled, if not in words, with letters with references by the text. Second, a step-by-step description of what happens with each component at each stage of every cycle is necessary to understand how it works -- where current is flowing, where induction takes place, etc.

The section entitled "Description" needs diagrams to explain the text. I cannot understand using the text alone.

[edit] Man killed in pasadena MD by coil

I live in the area, and I had heard a few months ago (early 2008), a man in Pasadena had been killed by hid hobby tesla coil. Either way, if anyone happens to find a source for this... I haven't looked. ----

[edit] Responsible rewrite still needed

2007.1.6 Documented SSTC & VTTC. Some of this article is pretty neat and some is terrible, mainly at the beginning. It seems as though there's a lot of quoting from Tesla's communications or patents, and he wasn't trying too hard to be understood by most of the people who are going to read the article. Was the person who wrote that even a coiler, I wonder, or just for some reason moved to do some transcription? One vote for slash and burn, by anybody who's going to do it right.

There seems to be a lot of ambiguity about whether an "extra coil", or "magnifier", design is being discussed in the Tesla-ese, as opposed to a classical, two-winding setup. If we're going to talk about Tesla's work specifically, lets do it well.

And yes, Tesla was an ordinary man, he took out some patents on things that don't work (and on some that do), he was very histrionic, and let's continue to avoid pseudoscience.

72.72.37.51 02:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Packer

OK, I couldn't take it anymore. I started reading the top of the article again, and some of it's comprehensible, even though it needs lots of illustration and is a touch boring. However, some of it seemed to have been edited badly, producing nothing coherent. I worked it around and fleshed it out rather extravagantly, but what I removed was minimal; I think it had been added by somebody who hadn't read or understood what they were altering.

I left in language I didn't like, out of politeness, but at least somebody can read the thing now.

72.72.37.51 00:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Packer

The "current understanding" is that energy does not have charge? How far are we going to take this? The Earth is "currently believed" to be spheroidal? I'm an epistemological nihilist myself; I don't think I know my own name, but this kind of thing is taken as read, you don't incessantly say that we don't know this or that when it's as likely as the nose on your face. Before you challenge basic science, it could be preferable to study it.

72.72.37.51 07:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Packer

Added explanation of what a patent wasn't. I refrained from repeating what I have read, that the US Patent Office, specifically in response to Tesla taking out many patents of very dubious merit, instituted a requirement that a working model be submitted with each patent application, which requirement was rescinded some decades later.

WELCOME to the Wiki Physics folks!!! 72.72.103.19 06:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Packer

You know, the Tesla cultist(s) who keep transcribing stuff into this article that they don't understand are making the whole thing look like a joke. I suggest they build and operate whatever they want to talk about, then talk about it!

72.72.103.19 04:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Packer

Maybe we should abandon "Tesla Coil" to the cultist(s) who keep transcribing material that they don't understand, and that the vast majority of visitors won't understand, which has essentially ruined the article, and start a new article for all the other material; perhaps we could call it "Tesla Coiling", but something like "Tesla Coil, Modern" is also a possibility. In fact, calling it simply "Coiling" might help a lot to prevent unwanted edits. I just think that this article is a lost cause because of these transcriptions.

72.72.99.194 01:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Packer

Oops! Packer was legitimately registered to another user. I am now: FETSmoke 13:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I just took a deep breath and read the article again, and it's not doing too badly. Looks like somebody kind of beat it into shape. I don't agree with everything, but I'm leaving well enough alone. I'm glad we've got this working reasonably well for the benefit of the public. I do, though, hope that over time we can come to better agreement about the Reception section. FETSmoke 06:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, this article is way too patent-oriented rather than encyclopedic, i have rejigged some of the sentences/structure but would prefer 3/4 of the article ditched or moved to "Nicola tesla's inventions/patents" or similar. i will continue if there is no upset to cull a lot of extraneous theory etc. I'm an engineer and it's difficult for me to understand! anyway, looks like I'll try as much as possible to clean this up.--Read-write-services (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "High frequency electrical current" ?

What are you guys, retarded? What would you measure that in, precisely? Hertz-amperes? Charges*cycles per second squared? Is it some form of acceleration, then?

Not that everyone doesn't already expect scientific illiteracy from Wikipedia. Thanks, Jimbo, for making a medium where any idiot can pretend to have 4 doctorates, or 40 doctorates, or whatever, and fleece you, and by extension, the rest of the unwashed masses that make this site their home pages. Obviously the best person to ask for information about Tesla Coils is the first person you meet on the street corner, because that's exactly who is contributing to Wikipedia. --76.209.58.121 06:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page is tragic, and it isn't unheard of on Wikipedia, but your criticism is unfounded and embarrassing to your fellow bad-tempered cranks such as myself. Consider a current probe around a conductor, with the probe connected to an oscilloscope. The oscilloscope shows a sine wave at 50 kHz. Presto! High-frequency electric current. How to get it? Anything wrong with a function generator connected to a resistor? Perhaps you were thrown by the omission of the word, "alternating," but when a nonzero frequency is specified, "alternating" may be omitted since it is unambiguously implied. Incidentally, I have worked, very successfully, in industry for many years as an electrical engineer, and some time ago I designed and build a solid-state Tesla coil, which is giving me about 16-inch sparks. In that, I presume I'm typical of some (BUT NOT ALL!!!) participants in this article. FETSmoke 13:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you measure the voltage coming from a high frequency sinusoidal source in, smart ass?--Loodog 20:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you mean units used to state voltage, then VRMS is often used, although some might prefer dBVRMS, or dBuVRMS (RMS is normally omitted and understood) or, bending the rules as is common, dBmW, with resistance understood. I'm interested in why you're abusive, by the way. I assume you're having a bad life day, but I like to know when I'm messing up. FETSmoke (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say FETSmoke, I do believe you told him :-D VOLTS! (Thank you for your contribution to this page)----


[edit] Atlanta Ga experiment on population?

This section:

"In Atlanta GA, USA, students at Morehouse College have constructed a 32ft tall, 4.5 gigawatt coil to demonstrate potential biological effects of high voltage current on human populations. It was designed by Dr.Andrew Hedrick, also of Atlanta, and funded by a grant from Harpo Productions. It is reported that during operation, people within a 20 block radius of the device can feel the hair on the back of their necks stand up, and small sparks can be seen jumping between the teeth of people."

Has to be absolutely untrue for several reasons. There's no way any college kids could have built a 4.5 GIGAWATT coil. That would be more power output than most nuclear power plants are capable of. Using the current standard equation for predicting tesla coil output, that would result in sparks 6700 feet long from the top of the coil. That probably would have been noticed, and made significant national and international news. Not to mention because of all the nearby people that would kill, both by lightning strikes, and anyone with a pacemaker.

I also call into question the idea that any university could get permission to do experiments on a human population, especially those that involve high voltage electricity flying through the air, and sparks jumping between people's teeth. And as noted above, anyone with a pacemaker would die after it malfunctioned due to the extreme radio transmissions from the coil.

  • Removed offending section* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hightek02 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Reception citations

Need citations. Putting them under each bullet. J. D. Redding

  • The secondary coil and its capacitor can be used in receive mode.
  • The Tesla Coil can also be made to utilize atmospheric electricity.
    • Plauson, U.S. Patent 1540998 , "Conversion of atmospheric electric energy". Jun. 1925.
    • U.S. Patent 0685957 - Apparatus for the utilization of radiant energy - N. Tesla
    • U.S. Patent 0685958 - Method of utilizing of radiant energy - N. Tesla
  • Tesla stated that the output power attained from these devices was low.
    • Noted that this was only via Hertzian methods
  • There are, to date, no commercial power generation applications that use this technology.
    • Noted that this was only via Hertzian methods
  • The power levels achieved by Tesla Coil receivers have, thus far, been a small fraction of the output power of the transmitters.
    • Noted that this was only via Hertzian methods
  • Various public demonstration of such technology, by any individual, group, college or university, industrial concern, government agency or laboratory or other entity of various kind have been reported.

I wonder if most, or all, of this section shouldn't be moved to Wireless energy transfer? Bert 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Some could be, but the majority should be left here. J. D. Redding

OK... The discussions/references pertaining to Tesla's Radiant Energy patents in the "Reception" section have nothing to do with Tesla Coils. Their presence in an article about Tesla Coils is confusing and off topic. A Tesla Coil resonator can indeed serve as reception device to detect rapid changes in local electrostatic or magnetic fields, and coupling can be inductive, capacitive, or conductive (base driven), and energy transfer can be via near field and/or far field effects. However, Tesla's Radiant Energy patents describe relatively slow charge collection on electrically isolated plates via atmospheric electricity, charged particles, or other sources of ionizing radiation, with the charge being SLOWLY accumulated across a low leakage high voltage capacitor. These patents, and the associated radiant energy discussion, have nothing to do with the description, design, operation, or theory of Tesla Coils. The Radiant Energy patents/discussions have nothing to do with the "Tesla Antennas" either (which is an RF device). Tesla coils utilize energy transfer between two (or more) tuned resonant circuits. Tesla's Radiant Energy patents show a variety of simple capacitor storage circuits including some that switch the charged capacitor to drive loads (either directly, or via an _untuned_ transformer). The entire radiant energy references and discussion might better fit in [Wireless power]] or perhaps {Wardenclyffe Tower]]. In any event, it does not belong here. Bert 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Tesla coil receivers" were an application of Tesla coils. Their presence in an article about Tesla Coils is clarifying the uses of his coils and on topic. A Tesla Coil resonator can indeed serve as reception device. Tesla coils can slowly charge electrically. These patents, and the associated radiant energy discussion, have everything to do with the description, design, operation, or theory of Tesla Coils and "Tesla Antennas". J. D. Redding 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (BTW., the material was added due to "citation needed" fact tags. This rectifies the situation of needing the references. J. D. Redding)

OK... Please show WHERE (in the Radiant Energy patents) tuned circuits are employed? Explain just HOW can a base-grounded resonator (the definition of a Tesla Antenna) can "charge up" slowly? WHERE is the connection between the Radiant Energy patents (using isolated plates to slowly charge a HV capacitor (via charged particles from cosmic rays, x-rays, beta particles, etc.) and the theory/operation of Tesla Coils? I fail to grasp how a slow accumulation of DC on a HV capacitor bears ANY relationship to an RF-excited Tesla Antenna or a Tesla Coil. Adding citations that do not relate to Tesla Coils does NOT improve the accuracy and understandability of this article - it detracts and potentially confuses readers. Bert 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The photoelectric work doesn't relate to Tesla coils, you're right. I can't tell whether radiant energy also meant electromagnetic or near-field electric radiation at a low enough frequency to be picked up by a realizable Tesla coil. If you commutate the current feeding the HV side of a Tesla coil (which you might or might not be able to do usefully with available technology), you should be able to run it backwards. FETSmoke 06:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Patent 0723188, Method of Signaling, and U.S. Patent 0725605, System of Signaling, call for a elevated transmitter capacitance and a corresponding receiver. There is a top node, a earth electrode, and a transformer (with the primary or secondary, depending on the use, connected to a condenser). Transmitting, it's a impulse generator. Receiving, it's a impulse accumulator. The phrase "vibrate in synchronism" is key in U.S. Patent 0685953, Apparatus for Utilizing Effects Transmitted from a Distance to a Receiving Device through Natural Media. The "effects" are "radiant energy effects".

In U.S. Patent 0685954, Method of Utilizing Effects Transmitted through Natural Media may be from an "independent source" at a distant transmitting electrical energy (say a transmitter or a natural source). The isolated plate is the top terminal consisting of a metallic frame in the shape of a toroid. It can slowly charge a capacitor after a step down transformation (lowering the voltage, increasing the current). Notice in U.S. Patent 1119732, you can have a capacitor ... and this structure can be used as a reciever instead of a transmitter.

I can go on ... but this will do for now ... J. D. Redding 18:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (ps.,Tesla also states that U.S. Patent 0685957, Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy, is related to U.S. Patent 0577671, Manufacture of Electrical Condensers, Coils and Similar Devices.)

Appendium:

  • U.S. Patent 7,053,576  states this system in more complete terms. J. D. Redding 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Abstract "transmitter and a receiver both incorporating Tesla coils"
    • Page 10 "The transmitter and receiver each preferably comprise a Tesla coil" ...
    • Page 14, "Eventually, in his power transmission system, he would replace this transmit-ter with a Tesla coil, and place an identical receiving coil at the receiving [...]"

[edit] Suggested link

Nikola Tesla Experiments in Alternate Currents Suggested Link—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.165.186 (talk) 20:39, April 18, 2007(commercial)

Tesla-coil Related Live Event(commercial)

Preview of Tesla Event(commercial)

[edit] Not proven

RE CREDIBILITY: Tesla's radiant energy work would appear to be either photoelectric effect, which is significantly less effective than semiconductor photovoltaic cells, or possibly in some cases the mistaking of atmospheric electricity for a photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect is regarded as due to the energy imparted to the surface by a photon, which is not charged, causing an electron to fly off. Current is obtained when the electron eventually finds its way to a pole of a utilization or storage device (Tesla's condenser) of which the other pole is connected to the irradiated surface. (Tesla's use of an "insulated" electrode is novel, but at the tiny currents he admitted that he was obtaining the insulation (whatever material it was) might have been conducting. Electrons can seem to get from anywhere to anywhere because each of them is everywhere at once; this is how tunnel diodes work. I don't know whether tunnelling could account for this. In any case, his experiment is no more supportive of "charged corpuscles" than of photoelectric effect. He admits, you may notice, that photoelectric effect was already known prior to his involvement. FETSmoke 15:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

Nobody is denying the atmospheric voltage gradient; the issue is the limited power available due to the limit on the current that may be drawn at any one point (air isn't very conductive). As I've noted in the article, the total amount of power available world-wide would appear to be only enough for less than one in a thousand households. Interestingly, at the turn of the century, when Tesla was working on this, world population was far less and per capita energy consumption was far less, so it would have been a bit more realistic, but not by a factor of a thousand.

I would prefer that Tesla's claims of a hundred years ago, when electricity was very little understood, not be used to justify language that implies that Tesla's interpretation of something is generally accepted. FETSmoke 05:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In particular, Tesla makes it clear in his patent that the "charged corpuscles" are only his speculation to explain his photoelectric results, and their presence everywhere in space is also a speculation. Please identify these ideas as speculation, and don't present them as generally accepted fact.

You've scrambled two different things together, or three things: the photoelectric work, which has nothing to do with Tesla coils, the reception of electromagnetic radiation (alternating or time-varying) or near-field alternating current and the harvesting of direct current from atmospheric electricity. It's a pity you can't work with somebody who knows the science to get this stuff straight.

An ordinary Tesla coil does not "slowly charge up." To direct current, it's a dead short to ground. Harvesting DC requires turning it into AC, possibly with a capacitor and spark gap at the high-voltage end. (The source must be weak enough that the arc can clear.) FETSmoke 00:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The drawings entitled "Magnifier Configurations" do show such spark gaps, which are not customary on transmitting Tesla coils, and the large hats might provide the capacitance. However, if that's what they're for, there's no text to indicate as much. FETSmoke 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That upper spark gap is said to be a rectifier for producing, not utilizing, unipolar voltage. That might work because of the broad electric field from the large hat; I found a web page showing a low-pressure gas rectifier tube, just two terminals, that worked by having much more surface area on one electrode (a wire helix) than the other. Having the big hat surrounding the upper spark gap electrode should suffice. One possible reason Tesla might have cared about unipolar voltage is if he wanted to modulate it at a low frequency, 8 Hz or whatever, to utilize Earth and ionosphere as a waveguide (or whatever exactly he did along those lines). What I don't understand, off hand, is how he could ring up the resonator without a topload on the lower side of the upper spark gap. If anybody knows what this was about, please comment. FETSmoke 10:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My grandmother's fortune teller told her that the Astabigian War Council planted the idea of Tesla coils in Tesla's mind by mind control. Once the number of Tesla coils exceeds 0.23175 per square mile, all human life on Earth will be obliterated at once by high-energy discharges, and the Astabigian Confederation will take over the Earth to grow mutant coconuts. How do you know this is false; are you a skeptic? FETSmoke 16:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telluric Currents

Removed statement about Telluric currents in entry paragraph since it does not pertain to actual Tesla Coil operation. Bert 23:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What do they actually DO?!

I skimmed this entire article checking the introduction and contents twice, and was left with no idea

1) Why these things were/are built

2) What they actually do

I feel this should be rectified. Shockeroo 17:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In a word, entertainment. Much like playing with firecrackers. There are also a very few serious uses.FETSmoke 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel some of their practical uses should be put in the article. I was seconds away from asking this same question and I'm sure several people have come to the article for the exact same purpose. 68.166.65.221 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


I agree, this article is extremely inaccessible to those who didn't know already. I came here wondering what a Tesla coil does...and I still don't really know. I know its something to do with electrics that was invented by Nikola Tesla, and not much else. While I'm sure the technical information is very good, this article could seriously do with a much expanded "for the ignorant" section. 82.69.37.32 19:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Tesla made these coils while working on wireless electricity. I read that if you put wood on top of it it causes the wood to either glow from the inside or burst into bits. As for practical uses, the EMF produced allows wireless electricity, and the magnetic fields will ionize fluorescent light bulbs and the like. X giva 00:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tesla coil video

I just wanted to share a link to a video I made of a pair of tesla coils that were on display at the MAKE/Dorkbot Fair at SXSW Interactive this past spring. The coils are connected to a computer, which has the coils shoot out sparks at specific frequencies, generating music. Thought it might be an interesting way to show a creative use of a Tesla coil in the external links section. Acarvin 13:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Health claims

A number of companies sell Tesla machines for high prices to credulous individuals at MLM "Tuppleware party" type events. Expected health benefits are the sole argument for paying the inflated prices demanded, and the sellers move the merchandise by making health claims in direct and indirect ways (frequently seeking to use personal testimonials from someone saying "seemed to help me" as a way to circumvent the ban on making unjustified health claims). Some machine buyers market individual "sessions" on the Telsa to trusting "alternative health care clients" too poor to buy a machine outright.

There are no peer-reviewed placebo-controlled studies for the unauthorized claims, and the devices are not FDA approved for the making of any health claims, nor any convincing evidence that the health benefits touted by the unauthorized claims exist.

Anyone having information along these lines, adding it to the article may help some trusting folks avoid having their pockets emptied by the delusive hope that the health claims will come true, or that the placebo effects will continue. If you have further information or sources (such as FDA records, warning letters, injunctions, etc.), please add it here, and when this section is ready, please add it to the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.68.81 (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] =========

The tingle factor http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14419574.900.html

   * 24 December 1994
   * From New Scientist Print Edition. 
   * David Fishlock

Freelance Writer and Publisher ...

Do black boxes emitting electricity or rays have a serious place in medicine? There is no doubt that the early inventions attracted the "snake-oil merchants". As early as 1882, Silvanus Thompson, a fellow of the Royal Society and president of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, warned of the "gross impositions of the quacks and rogues who deal in the so-called magnetic appliances and disgrace alike the science of electricity and medicine while knowing nothing of either". But these machines have not gone away.

Little benefit

Only this year, the American Cancer Society found it necessary to issue a report stating unequivocally that a review of electronic devices had revealed no evidence of objective benefit in the treatment of cancer in human beings. It concludes: "Lacking such evidence, the American Cancer Society strongly urges individuals with cancer not to seek treatment with such devices." Some of the devices, the report acknowledges, have made fortunes for those who sold them.

Anthony Barker, principal physicist at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, investigates such devices for the National Health Service. Surprisingly few of those submitted have been tested by the standard procedure of the medical profession for evaluating new therapies, the double-blind trial, in which details of the trial are kept from both practitioner and patient. Such a trial is designed "to enable a true effect of the treatment under test to be distinguished from those of observer bias, unconscious encouragement of the patient by the therapist, concurrent improved general medical care, the natural healing process and placebo effects, the latter often being surprisingly large", says Barker.

Often the informed eye can see at a glance from the size of the magnet or the battery that the black box can exert no significant physiological effect. Barker is appalled by sales of so-called magnetic cures by otherwise reputable pharmacies. The disorders they are claimed to cure are naturally self-healing or have natural periods of remission, he says.

Such conditions give "ample opportunity for wishful thinking on the part of the patient or therapist," says Barker. Probably so. But it cannot be denied that this unquenchable hope for a cure has spawned some fascinating equipment.

... From issue 1957 of New Scientist magazine, 24 December 1994, page 58 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.68.5 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solid state Tesla coil

I took care of an old proposal to merge in Solid state Tesla coil to here by merging the text into the discussion of SSTCs at the end of Tesla's later coils. Old talk page here. --Morrand 22:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added reference to 'City of Heroes'

Added a reference to 'Tesla Knights' and 'Tesla Cages' in the 'In Fiction' section from 'City of Heroes'. 74.197.90.65 (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atmospheric Electricity

It's acceptable to delete all reference to atmospheric electricity. When I was looking at the patents, it looked as though it was thinking done by others; I didn't notice Tesla working on atmospheric static electricity; he worked on alternating near voltage fields and electromagnetic radiation. But it's only acceptable to delete all of the mention of it, not just some of it.

The reason that it could stay is that if you interrupt the current from the atmospheric static electricity, it acquires an AC component, and I believe that other workers proposed to use a spark gap and capacitor similarly to Tesla's work.

Unless somebody can point to Tesla working with atmospheric static electricity, it would be more orderly to delete all such material; it relates to free energy (like hydro, wind and solar; where's the excitement?), but not much to Tesla coils.

You could speak of "atmospheric electrical disturbances" to clarify that you meant AC, but then the patents on atmospheric static electricity should go.

FETSmoke (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read Tesla material before removal. Tesla used radiant energy, which includes atmospheric static electricity, a non-hertzian energy (eg., please read up on Tesla's material and longitudinal "static" electricity that is natural and abundant) and the hertzian electromagnetic radiation. Of the latter, he stated that it was near useless in transmission of power. Of the former (the so-called "static" electricity), it was not static and was most promising to be used for wireless power transmission. J. D. Redding 23:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The patent, Hermann Plauson, U.S. Patent 1,540,998 , "Conversion of atmospheric electric energy". Jun. 1925, deals with vertical atmospheric static electricity, i.e. DC.

Please cite a single document and quote the part that says atmospheric static electricity is radiant energy, here, in the discussion.

By the way, Tesla's work with the so-called corpuscles flowing in light was DC.

Don't say to "read Tesla's material"; the collection of it I bought is over 600 pages. Please cite a document and quote a sentence, here, in the discussion, where the term "longitudinal static electricity" occurs.

FETSmoke (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I will look around for more references.
I had a discussion with another user a bit ago about the longitudinal electrostatic waves. He stated Tesla never mentioned them ... and a quick g.search of Pepe's Tesla site show that patently untrue.
Read Tesla's materials. A result link for you to begin! [1]
J. D. Redding 01:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a definition of "Hertzian." It's no wonder Tesla found it disappointing; the near field provides much more power (as a few burns and a deceased wristwatch can attest), but you have to be near!

It pleases me to leave the discussion of atmospheric static electricity in, because it provides refutation of another idea people have for "free" energy. However, it has almost nothing to do with Tesla coils.

My purpose is to keep people from wasting time and resources, which could from time to time cause serious harm. These things fan out in society, such that one comforting fantasy may distort the actions of thousands or even millions of people. With a bit of bad luck, that could be a problem. Suppose people vote for a presidential candidate because she says that we don't need cellulosic ethanol and economical photovoltaics. That would be tragic.

FETSmoke (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Reddi, the search you provided comes up with various documents (dangerous .doc documents, but which can be read as HTML) that appear to be about X-rays (seemingly unrelated to the titles; that site didn't impress me for organization). The word "longitudinal" appears several times, but never in close connection to "electrostatic" or "static electricity".

Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary says that "electrostatic" and "static electricity" both refer to stationary charges (DC). However, Tesla used "electrostatic" to mean "electric". I'm not aware that he ever used the term "static electricity" to mean anything other than the M-W definition, granting that this might have been confusing when he spoke of a charge that had been static finally discharging as lightning. And again, you have not provided an occurrence in conjunction with "longitudinal".

I'm not aware that I ever denied the existence of longitudinally polarized electromagnetic radiation, although an informed glance at a TV antenna shows that there are other polarizations. Tesla may have also meant an electric field without appreciable magnetic field. When the energy sloshes between the electric field and the magnetic field, that makes it electromagnetic, and able to propagate arbitrary distances from the source until absorbed, but usually spreading out and thus weakening. In Tesla's work in which he said he electrified the Earth, he felt the Earth as a conductor was guiding the energy, and it was converging at a point on the earth opposite the transmitter, then passing back and converging again at the transmitter, where he believed he was adding a little more energy and then sending it off around the Earth again. He felt he was using the Earth as what we would call a waveguide, and I don't know enough to say he wasn't. I think he also said he was putting in 10,000 horsepower (7.46 megawatts), even when he wasn't receiving more than enough for a lightbulb. Or was it 10 million?

The above was transmission and reception, not reception of naturally-occurring power. Incidentally, Tesla's incentive to receive useful amounts of naturally-occurring power was astronomical; he would truly have been the hero of the age if he had done that, and if he'd held the patent on it, he would have been fabulously rich; but still he didn't do it. Not conclusive, but it certainly bears thinking about.

My point, which I blush to make again, is not so much all of these details, but your habit of taking a bit of Tesla langauge from one document, some from another, unrelated one, throwing it in the blender because you don't understand it at all anyway and sticking the resulting meaningless gibberish in the article (or discussion). You've failed to meet my challenges to prove that you didn't make up terms you were using.

We're not developing a new religious ritual or something here. The words are there so that people can do things. Nobody will be able to reproduce any of Tesla's work, and carry it forward, if they're compelled to rely on your accounts of it.

Tesla was a showman and I don't know what he would have thought of what you do. As for me, do me no favors. When I'm dead, don't even think of representing me or my work until you understand it completely; just let me rot unmolested.

Of course, I'm far from perfect; you can look at my edit history of this entry to see my weak performance.

FETSmoke (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oudin vs Tesla

OUDIN COIL OR RESONATOR
Just what is the difference between an Oudin resonator and a Tesla Coil? In his book, HIGH FREQUENCY APPARATUS 1916 Thomas Stanley Curtis says "Oscillation transformers may be broadly classed under these two headings. The Oudin Coil is in reality an auto transformer, i.e., its primary and secondary are connected together at a neutral point which, in the case of High frequency apparatus, could be grounded. In the Tesla coil, the only connection between the primary and the secondary is an inductive one. The two windings are separate and distinct." (See figure.XX) There is also a third type which is any combination of all of the above.

Found this at http://www.plasma-art.com/goodbadsci.html J. D. Redding 15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC) [and on not a completely unrelated thing, Utilization of Raidiant Energy 1901 Nikola Tesla youtube.com... thought it was neat, so putting it here ... ]

Yes, that was the initial distinction, an Oudin coil was an autotransformer, with the primary a part of the secondary, usually wound on the same cylinder with heavier wire Martin, p.187-192. The bottom of the primary was grounded. The current was applied to the primary coil with an adjustable tap so that it's frequency could be tuned to match the secondary, which varied with loading as the coil was used Jacoby, p.108. The output was taken across both coils in series. In a Tesla coil, although the two coils may be connected, the output was taken only across the secondary. Not a big difference. In electrotherapy machines, the major use for such coils, the Tesla circuit was used in America, and the Oudin was preferred in Europe, supposedly because it was safer Strong, p.80-86. Oudin coils supposedly produced less powerful sparks but longer streamers (or 'effluvia'). Unfortunately, by around 1920 the definition changed, and any high frequency coil that was unipolar, with one end grounded, was called an Oudin coil, while any bipolar coil, with both ends at high potential, was called a Tesla coil. Ironically, the 'Oudin' coils of that time usually had exactly the same circuit as modern Tesla coils Twining, p.97. Here's an excellent discussion of the differences] by Jeff Behary who owns the Electrotherapy Museum, where you can see dozens of examples of both types. --ChetvornoTALK 22:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)